Parenthood just gets better and better

Forget government propaganda: having a large family is actually good for you, says Ed West

Sticking Up For Siblings by Colin BrazierCivitas, £8

My wife recently gave birth, and the experience of having three children is not breezy-easy. As a fellow father-of-three explained to me: “Monday morning is the highlight of my week.” But I’ve still got some way to go to catch up with Colin Brazier, who has sired a brood of five daughters and a son, and now has produced this persuasive and informative pamphlet on the benefits of larger families.

The Sky News presenter points out that “dads who are caring for their infants have been found to have more of a calming hormone in their blood if they are fathers with two or more children, compared with men becoming fathers for the first time”. I could certainly do with more of that. Yet even during the darkest moments – with infant, toddler and baby, husband and wife all screaming – parents know that it’s worth it.

Many couples, however, still need to be persuaded; as many as 70 per cent of them feel they cannot afford a second child, and Brazier asks if they are being given reliable information about the costs of parenthood. We’ve all seen those newspaper articles about the expense of raising children, usually citing some absurd figure, even as high as £270,000. Brazier says these “studies” are far from neutral. They are used to promote insurance or savings products, and the social science of this area “has been more or less colonised by PR execs from the City”, rather than universities or independent think-tanks.

One mother of five on parenting site Mumsnet queried the £270,000 figure: “Finishing schools in Switzerland? Designer buggies? Children are expensive – they do have to eat – but not nearly as expensive as some make out.”

Brazier’s book is not a polemic calling for higher birth rates or warning of the future consequences of low fertility levels, (though he does speculate on the social effects of lots more assertive elder children and fewer middle child compromisers). Rather, it is aimed at helping parents who would like more children but are fearful of the strain. Perhaps they are influenced by their peers or unwilling to once again go through “the parenting emergency”.

In one generation the proportion of only children has risen from a fifth to a quarter of all babies. This reflects not just economic pressure but fashion, too, which has been shifting towards smaller families for some time. It all goes back to Arsène Dumont, a lawyer and sociologist, who after reading the French census in 1880 convinced French people that small families were needed in order to rise up the social scale. Then in the 1970s Polish-American Robert Zajonc wrote “Dumber by the Dozen” for Psychology Today, arguing that the more siblings children had the stupider they were as they spent more time with “pre-verbal” children. But, as Zajonc admitted and as later studies showed, this has little impact on more educated families.

The author laments: “The notion that siblings can contribute to the happiness and health of children, couples and society at large is seen, in so far as it is considered at all, as an anachronism.”

Yet there are lots of benefits of larger family size. The first is solidarity. A third of American adults name their siblings when asked: “Who is the one person you would call if you had an emergency in the night, needed to borrow $200 in an emergency, or were depressed and confused and needed advice?” Two thirds name at least one sibling as among their closest friends. There is also the help with looking after aged parents. Brazier notes that British research shows that “grown-up children with elderly parents to care for, on average, suffer less hardship if they have siblings”. Then there are the health benefits: children with siblings are more germ-resistant and less susceptible to allergies, while the odds for obesity decrease by 14 per cent with each additional sibling in the house.

So Brazier’s advice is: go for it. After all, it really does get easier, with “second-time mothers throughout mammal species” tending to have “lower levels of stress hormones than first-timers”. You would not think so if you visited my home at bath time, but I suppose we’re getting there.

Comments

Comment Policy

At The Catholic Herald we want our articles to provoke spirited and lively debate. We also want to ensure the discussions hosted on our website are carried out in civil terms.

All commenters are therefore politely asked to ensure that their posts respond directly to points raised in the particular article or by fellow contributors, and that all responses are respectful.

TreenonPoet

On the other hand, if you are an unselfish person with some consideration for those outside your family and for future generations, you could choose to behave responsibly by limiting procreation in accordance with the sustainable use of resources.

The article does not mention what Brazier’s opinion is on matters such as for how long safe phosphates will remain affordable. Such are the factors that should be considered before making a recommendation to “go for it”.

Andrew

Whatever you do: do not visit your advice on this subject on your own children, your siblings, your friends, or anybody else unless (1) you are asked and (2) you are sure they really want it. It’s their business. Not yours. Or anybody else’s.

TreenonPoet

What impacts me is my business. What impacts life on Earth I make my business. Who are you to tell me not to give advice?

Guest

Go for it!!

Andrew

This is a matter on which the giving of unasked and unwanted advice to individuals can do no good – it an only destroy friendships and damage family relationships. We can all express our views on the wider general question, but what couples do remains their business.

defiant12314

So having a large family is now selfish? I would say that this the most idiotic comment I’ve seen all day but its only 00:12 am, listen mate I wish I had more brothers and sisters it’d probably have been better for me in the long run.

TreenonPoet

If too many people have large families then it will be worse for everyone in the long run. Globally, humans are consuming resources faster than they are being replenished. Not only is progress in science not managing to make up for this shortfall, but dwindling resources and climate change look set to make the situation worse. Unless the global population growth rate is sufficiently reduced, the misery that will be visited on families in the not too distant future will far outweigh the benefits of having multiple siblings. Knowingly reaping those benefits now at the expense of the suffering of future generations is selfish.

defiant12314

So who is qualified to determine how many children people should have? Politicians who write exceptions for themselves in laws?, scientists who frequently (by their own admission) get things wrong? or busybodies such as yourself?

Will this be voluntary or will we ala China brutally enforce such policies with forced abortions and sterilizations? Will we punish those who dare to be fertile with civil penalties or will we merely stigmatize them socially?

You obviously don’t know many people who have large families, in my experience they tend to actually use less resources per person than smaller families as they grow some of their own food, re-use clothes and benefit from economies of scale in general.

As for climate change, the climate has been changing for millions of years, mans impact is negligible (see James Delingpole’s article in the Telegraph).

Please stop poking your overlarge nose into issues that do not concern you

Good Day

Calistarius

TreenonPoet

”So who is qualified to determine how many children people should have? Politicians who write exceptions for themselves in laws?, scientists who frequently (by their own admission) get things wrong? or busybodies such as yourself?”

Science, in combination with logic, is the best method we have for getting close to the truth. Therefore it would be folly to abandon science just because scientists sometimes get things wrong. Politicians would do well to acknowledge that, and some do. Science and logic can be used to estimate the globally sustainable population level. Politicians ought to react to that information, though current regimes tend to favour short-termism to the extent that you wonder whether they care what sort of world their grandchildren will live in.

”Will this be voluntary or will we ala China brutally enforce such policies with forced abortions and sterilizations? Will we punish those who dare to be fertile with civil penalties or will we merely stigmatize them socially?”

The better educated people are about the issues and the less they are driven by circumstances to have larger families and the more it is within their power to control fertility, the greater the chances that average family size will optimise. I would have thought that stigmatisation would be beneficial, but I have not noticed much stigmatisation of drivers of gas-guzzlers in this age of emission reduction.

”You obviously don’t know many people who have large families, in my experience they tend to actually use less resources per person than smaller families as they grow some of their own food, re-use clothes and benefit from economies of scale in general.”

Less resources per person multiplied by greater number of persons usually equates to more resources in total. It is possible for smaller families to achieve economies of scale by co-operation.

”As for climate change, the climate has been changing for millions of years, mans impact is negligible (see James Delingpole’s article in the Telegraph).”

Why do you ignore that fact that most climate scientiststhink otherwise? And even if climate change was not related to man’s impact, the effect on agriculture would be just as devastating.

”Please stop poking your overlarge nose into issues that do not concern you”

That so many Catholics do not seem to be concerned about the consequences of overpopulation is an indictment of Catholicism.

defiant12314

Ala Climate change I am an agnostic leaning towards skepticism (for reasons that are far too complex to go into on a combox)

I’m glad that you admire Science and logic, as an amataur philosopher so do I, although I am aware (unlike many scientists) of the limitations of science, pray tell how science can tell us exactly how many children a family should have? Also as a nation we need to be making babies as our fertility ratio has dropped below replacement level, I would have thought that far from stigmatizing large families you would want to encourrage them; also I think it is the basest snobbery to suggest that higher levels of education should also result in smaller families, I know of home-schooling mothers who are very intelligent and have upwards of 6 or seven children.

I am surprised that you would want to stigmatize large families after all is it not the creed of the liberal (you seem to be one judging from your comments) that judging someone for their lifestyle is the one unforgivable sin?

I fail to see how a lack of concern over overpopulation is an indictment of my Faith, after all (using logic) if one wishes to indict a belief system then one must look at the premises of that belief system and not its effects e.g. I am not a muslim because on philosophical grounds I cannot reconcile the classical islamic conception of God with the knowledge and attributes of God provided by Aristotle in his proof from motion.

Good day

TreenonPoet

For simplicity, let me restrict my response to your first question to global concerns. (In the absence of a global government, there are obvious conflicts of interest between nations which I need not go into here.) Although science can determine the lowest possible standard of living compatible with a reproductive life, it is probably a political decision what the minimum acceptable standard of living is. If that standard can be globally agreed, then science can determine (on the basis of current knowledge) the maximum global population that would allow everyone to achieve that standard of living sustainably. If the current global population exceeds that figure (which it currently does based on a modest standard of living), then science would recommend a negative population growth rate suited to reducing the population to the sustainable level. That would give an average fertility figure that should not be exceeded. I would be up to governments how that average would be realised.

Regarding Britain in isolation: As in many countries, its population is greater than the sustainable level, so a temporary negative population growth rate would be a good thing, but a different economic model is required – one in which pensions do not rely on economic growth, in which care of the elderly is made more efficient, and so on.

By ‘education’, I meant being made aware of the issues relating to overpopulation. (Although there is a negative correlation between fertility and general education, this may be due to the time spent studying and/or following a career. A number of hypotheses could be raised regarding your home-schoolers anecdote.)

I am not liberal regarding morality. I think morals are absolute, but not in the simplistic way that some religious people seem to regard them. Free will is an illusion, but that does not mean that people are blameless. For society to function, people should be encouraged not to be sociopathic, but to behave morally. I would have thought that being conscious of how others will judge your lifestyle would help.

If Catholics are taught, in effect, that God will look after us, or that God commanded that we go forth and multiply, or that artificial contraception is wrong, or that God chooses how many children we have, then they are being encouraged to be complacent and irresponsible. (What those teachings have to do with a ‘proof’ from motion I don’t know.)

defiant12314

1) but, but my friend what if people want a higher standard of living? Are you going to dictate ala USSR how that that is an immoral Bourgeoisie extravagance and send them to reeducation camps ? In his ” Time for Choosing” speech in 1964 future President Ronald Reagan hit it on the nail when he said that the government cannot control the economy without controlling people and the resultant tyranny. Are you going to ration milk? what about the people who don’t like milk? what about those who go through a bottle a day with their cereal and milkshakes? must they go without because of a scientists dictat? Will husbands and wives be forcibly sterilized if they have one too many children because they couldn’t make the choice not to? I have news for you, scientific socialism ( the assumptions of which you base your views on how population should be controlled) has failed in every state it has been tried in, it sucks, its never worked

2) My original point stands, you cannot indict the Catholic Faith merely due to your ideas on population growth, for a basic philosophical defense of Theism which includes a case against abortion and contraception I cannot recommend a better book than “The Last Superstition – a refutation of the New Atheism” by Dr Edward Feser (£6 at amazon) BTW Dr Feser has six children the last time he posted the happy announcement on his blog and due to the fact that he defends Catholic teaching on contraception and abortion, I’m pretty sure that he and his wife know what a condom is.

3) free will is an illusion? then you cannot judge others because they are not free to choose, therefore they cannot adapt their behavior based on the perceptions of others, self refuting or what?

Dear Friend please do not embarrass yourself any further, if you respond any more I may very well end up having a tea party on the ceiling due to the merriment your idiotic and ill informed responses bring to my life.

Yours Sincerely

Calistarius

TreenonPoet

1)
Most of your paragraph (1) criticises measures that I am not suggesting. For example, where have I prohibited a higher standard of living? You are making up your own measures, then criticising me for them!

I am not aware of any states that have attempted what I have in mind because the changes require a certain amount of global co-operation that has not yet been forthcoming. That is not to say that they will never happen. Eternal economic growth is not possible. A global steady state economy may sound unlikely, but it is possible.

2)
If you cannot recommend a better defender of Theism than Feser, then your cause is lost. Anyone who relies on fallacies cannot be trusted to have a rational argument up their sleeve.

3)
People do adapt their behaviour according to what they think others perceive, but if they do so it is because they cannot help themselves. Even if they have gone through a conscious reasoning process to decide how to behave, then unless there are any random elements affecting their thinking, there is only one conclusion that they could possibly come to. That reasoning process gives the illusion of free will.

Others can observe the consequent behaviour and make a judgement about its motives and on whether the behaviour itself is good or bad. For the good of society, it may even be necessary to punish bad behaviour as a deterrent to all, even though the person behaving badly was not really free to do otherwise.

Since you do not seem capable of taking my responses seriously, enjoy your tea party.

vito

no thanks, one is more than enough for me. But I admit people are different and have different abilities and needs. Some parents really seem to be happy. But never fall for “you must try it” if you don’t want it. I never wanted kids, but succumbed to this pressure. Now that I tell all those who pressured me that I do not enjoy it at all, they keep going with their nonsense: “have one more, you’ll see it’ll be different this time”. No thank you.

defiant12314

1) I am talking about the logical conclusion of your ideas, once scientsits have calculated a basic standard of living which will support X number of people then the logical conclusion is that everyone MUST adhere to that basic standard, because if only half of the people do then why bother with calculating the standard in the first place? That my fine worded friend is the logic behind China’s population policies.

2) I recommended Dr Feser as a basic introduction to the philosophical defense of Theism, For other defendersI can think off the top of my head of Dr William Lane Craig, J.P Moreland, Father Thomas Crean O.P, Dr Peter Geach, Dr Timothy Mcgrew (and his wife Lydia), Dr Alexander Pruss, Dr David Oderburg, Dr Alvin Plantaga, (whose evolutionary argument against Metaphysical Naturalism I find intriguing) amongst the living, Amongst the Dear Departed there is St Thomas Aquinas, St Augustine, Aristotle, Plato, Moses Maimonides, Samuel Clarke etc etc. Now having spent the last four years reading and re-reading both Dr Feser’s books writing for both a popular and Academic Audience I find your assertion that he ‘commits fallacies’ amusing. In the Last Superstition the 2nd Chapter was spent giving an introduction to the Classical Philosophy of the Ancient Greeks, the 3rd a brief overview of St Thomas’s Five Proofs and the 4th giving a demonstration of the existence of an immaterial soul as well as a basic defense of traditional Catholic sexual morality.
If my fine friend you wish to refute his case then you must either dispute the premises of his argument OR argue that the conclusion does not logically follow.

3) If I have no choice on my behavior then how can I be punished for it? Classical legal theory has always held that in addition to actus reus or guilty act, Mens rea or guilty mind (denoting intent) is necessary for conviction. That is why a defendant can offer a plea of innocent if they are technically guilty of the crime but were devoid of intent to commit said crime e.g. In “The Count of Monte Christo” Edmond Dantes was innocent of treason because he believed that Napoleon was sending a letter to an old friend, Not information that could be used to help him escape from Elba.

As for the tea party we are currently raising the roof with a chorus of “come all ye Thomists” set to the tune of the Internationale

TreenonPoet

1)
Everyone, on average, must adhere to the standard. I accept that it is unfair that those who voluntarily exercise more than their fair share of restraint are, in effect, taken advantage of by those who lack restraint. Hopefully, governments would incentivise fairness. If it became necessary to use more forceful legislation, there are lessons to be learned from the Chinese one-child policy. For example, it was not the intention of the Chinese Government that any abortions be forced, but despite it being illegal, forced abortions reportedly have occurred. The reasons must be understood and similar occurrences guarded against. Although the one-child policy has been judged successful, it is rather like judging a battle to be successful despite the loss of many soldiers – better to avoid the need for a battle.

2)
Obviously I cannot be expected to refute here all the writings of all the theologians you list. As a taster regarding Feser, the following is an extract from my comments under another Catholic Herald article:

”The problem relating to the definition of ‘soul’ is one of equivocation, not hylomorphism (except in a strained analogous sense). Feser states “The soul is that which organizes a living thing’s matter in such a way that it is capable of the operations distinctive of living things”. Without supplying a special definition of ‘living things’, we must take it that it does not refer to dead things, or things in some other after-life state. Thus, whatever form this soul takes, it is only relevant during the life of a thing. To then state that “it is a subsistent form, capable of carrying on in existence beyond the death of the body” is to contradict his original definition.”

This is representative of all theology that I have read. What is most telling is not that these theologians are not able to satisfactorily counter much of the criticism of their work, but that their works contain so many fallacies that they presumably thought were valid arguments (assuming that they are not intentional fallacies that they thought they could get away with). But just think what a momentous occasion it would be if even one of these theologians came up with a single argument for God that could not be refuted by rational academics.

3)
Firstly, I should say that the mind does make choices of a sort; it is just that the outcomes are predetermined. If one ‘chooses’ between three options, one has no control over the criteria used to make that choice.

I am aware that some philosophers whom I respect are not in agreement with me regarding free will, so I don’t underestimate the task of trying to convince you of my conclusion. I only brought up the topic to indicate how our experiences (including the scorn of others) control our behaviour. I wonder whether the following video will be more convincing to you than my words:

I only have time to respond to points one and two due to lack of time I shall endevor to respond to the third tomorrow afternoon

1) So you would support the government forcibly intervening to prevent couples from having more than the allocated number of children and to forcibly limit an individual’s consumption of resources ? That sounds allot like tyranny and the idea (ala socialism) that the government knows what is best for us and that any dissent must be quashed (with force if necessary) for the ‘greater good’,I have no hesitation in telling you that I would gladly sell my life to see such a regime consigned to the dustbin of history.

2) I’m not sure where exactly this quote from Dr Feser is (I’m assuming that its from either one of his books or blog posts), but it does nothing to refute his philosophical case for the existence of God and the Soul founded on the Premises which have been around (in written form at least) since Plato; at worst the language Dr Feser used in this particular instance is confusing and does not equate to relying on fallacies. I have on two occasions emailed Dr Feser (I have never met the man in person) asking for clarifications and he responded within a week, perhaps you could do the same?

TreenonPoet

1)
Using derivatives of the word ‘force’ frequently does make it sound like tyranny doesn’t it! I suppose that you are opposed to the tyranny of preventing smokers from subjecting innocent non-smokers to tobacco smoke, or the tyranny of limiting an individuals consumption of non-smokeless fuel, or the tyranny of limiting vehicle emissions and ozone-depleting emissions. Such measures are not for the greater good, but for the good of all – even of those who think that freedom to pollute has greater value. Would you not agree that the government, in listening to the range of scientific advice on those matters, did know what was best for us? We only have the one atmosphere which we all have to share whether we like it or not. Likewise with other resources on this planet. The regime that you would rather have, one in favour of individual freedoms whatever the consequences, would result in earlier deaths. And you would sell your life to achieve that! Really?

2)
If you click on my link to the other Catholic Herald article, load all the comments, and search for ‘Feser’, you will see a link by Lazarus to the passage discussed, followed by a quote of the relevant extract from me.

The existence of the soul depends firstly on there being a cogent definition of the word ‘soul’. When the meaning of X is not known, saying that X exists is saying nothing meaningful.

Plato’s premises are irrelevant to my argument. Feser’s fallacy is one of equivocation; using the same word ‘soul’ for two different meanings. That is a very common fallacy. It occurs in the the so called proofs of the existence of God (by Aquinas, Craig, etc.), where different meanings of ‘God’ are equated.

One cannot ‘clarify’ a fallacy to make it a non-fallacy. One can substitute cogent text. If Feser, or anyone else, had come up with a cogent argument for God, I am confident that Richard Dawkins would be one of the first to admit its merit.

defiant12314

1) If a restaraunt or other eatery wants to allow smokers to smoke inside I’m ok for that, it used to be that the host asked you if you wanted to sit in the smoking or non-smoking section of the eatery, these are situations that the individual businessman should be able to
make and judge what is best for his business.
Whilst forcing smokers to smoke outside MAY have lead to public health benefits it has increased the State’s involvement in our lives which is a bad thing, it assumes the infallibility and impeccability of the state and its workforce (and lets face it, if they can’t live within the countries means who are they to lecture me on being responsible) and yes generally speaking I am a libertarian (albeit with a heavy does of Catholic influence) when it comes to government. Why should the state tell me how many children I can have or how many calories I consume ? What right does the population minister have to say that my wife and I must go against our faith and use contraception after we’ve had a certain number of kids?

2) Ok, the word soul is the translation via french I think from the Greek ‘anima’ or as we would say animating principle, now I don’t want to go down this rabbit hole as it has zero value in terms of the argument. If you want to dispute the existence of the immaterial soul then you have to either dispute the premises of the argument OR show that the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises, this is basic deductive logic. As for dawkins I find it hard to take seriously a man who in “The God Delusion” misrepresents the Traditional arguments from the existence of God and of the Proof from motion says (I paraphrase) “that no one has ever shown that the first mover must posses the Divine Attributes”, which shows his ignorance of Samuel Clarke’s “On the Existence and Attributes of God”, book two of “Summa Contra Gentiles” to name but two

May I ask, have you actually read and understood Aristotle and Aquinas? because your posts read like your not even remotely familiar with their works and that you’ve merely read distortions of them, peddled on the various ‘infidel’ websites that are ‘hip’ these days.

I think you need to read “Philosophy of Mind a beginners guide” , “The Last Superstition” and “Aquinas a beginners guide” all by Dr Feser. He notes criticisms of the arguments and responds to them.

I’m going to finish this conservation as I fear that it doesn’t do any good talking with someone who clearly doesn’t understand the issue

Good Night

Recusant

I don’t think you have thought about this very carefully. Who is using up the world’s resources? Is it people from Paraguay or Africa where larger families are the norm? No, it is people from the US, Europe and, increasingly, China, where fertility rates are miniscule. Small families, who are more likely to have two parents earning, take more foreign holidays, drive bigger cars, eat fancier meals and waste more water than those large families which are parsimonious by necessity. The evidence points the opposite way to your opinion – have more children, save the world.

Paul

What paranoid rubbish. People have solved the problem of distance ,they have cured diseases etc. In fact it’s pretty obvious that as the human population has boomed up to six billion the standard of living had increased globally. It’s not perfect but compare literacy rates and famine rates to those of a thousand years ago. Meanwhile puritans like you have been predicting the collapse of resources for centuries even while technology like refrigation and modern transport make it increasingly unlikely. Human beings are the greatest resource that there is. However, if it puts your mind at rest, make sure you don’t have children. That way the planet’s resources are protected and so is its intellectual climate.

TreenonPoet

You are correct about the disproportionate consumption of resources by some countries when their populations are considered. That is a problem that needs to be tackled based on targets related to sustainability. For more affluent nations, that generally means reducing consumption per capita. Even if those nations can afford to consume more in terms of what their money can buy (putting aside debate about whether it is really their money), they cannot buy the right to plunder the Earth. Nor is that a God-given right. The same applies within a given country.

However, whether we are talking about the world, or about individual countries, sustainability relates to total consumption, not relative consumption. If the world is using a particular resource 50% faster than it is replenishing it, then the resource will eventually run out irrespective of whether everyone is getting an equal share of that resource or not. A family of eight may be eating less per capita than a family of four, but the total food consumption of the family of eight is likely to be greater than the total food consumption of the family of four. Now consider this: If the two children in the family of four each have two children, the grand family will number eight. If the six children in the family of eight each have six children, the grand family will number forty-four. Do you honestly think that the forty-four will consume less in total than the eight?

TreenonPoet

Grain yields are not increasing at the rate that will be necessary to to feed the UN medium population estimate for the year 2050. What special knowledge do you have of a scientific breakthrough here? What is your response to those scientists who suggest we may have reached a theoretical maximum yield? How do you intend to ensure that climate change does not wipe out the gains that have been made in recent years? (Keeping your fingers crossed is not a good enough answer.)

Recusant

Yes I do, because I have seen the numbers. An average US family of 4 will eat way, way more than a Paraguyan family of 8, plus their grandchildren. This is just a fact. The countries of the world that consume the most have the lowest fertility. Look at China, where consumption increases as population decreases. I don’t think this is a coincidence – I think that people restrict their fertility because they don’t want to be restricted in how they work, or how they consume. Your opinions are vey common, but very wrong, and they do not withstand an encounter with reality.

TreenonPoet

The minimum intake for the average person is about 87J per second. Someone who consumes at three times this rate is seriously over-eating, so your claim comparing a family of 4 to a family of 8 is feasible (ignoring your ”way, way”), but in my example, comparing 8 to 44, the ratio is 1:5.5, so the 8 cannot possibly eat more than the 44.

Recusant

Have you seen the size of the average American? Have you seen the size of the average Paraguyan? I promise you my figures are correct.

TreenonPoet

I did not write that your figures were incorrect, but they do not support your argument. As I wrote, the minimum intake for the average person is about 87 Joules per second. The intake of the average American is about 157 Joules per second which is 1.8 times the minimum, so I was being generous in your favour by considering an intake of 3 times the minimum, yet even assuming that the the consumption per capita in a small family was 3 times the consumption per capita in a large family, I showed that over two generations, the total consumption would be much greater for the large family. My argument becomes even more forceful if one considers the third generation.

Please note that this is not my “opinion”, but a mathematical fact.

kathyschiffer

Vito, what a sad, sad report. I pray that your child has someone, somewhere, who wants to be with him or her, who enjoys seeing the world anew through a child’s eyes, who wants to impart values and traditions and ideas and faith. Parenthood is more joy than work; I pray you find the joy.

Maureen O’Brien

The image illustrating your article is telling. Only one newborn is being held. The other six are just scattered on the shelf.

Maureen O’Brien

AND what’s so bad about only children? Jesus Christ was an only child!

becky harper

It’s very interesting article you wrote, loved the buzz in comments section.